MovieChat Forums > Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion > issues of rape and guilt appear to be am...

issues of rape and guilt appear to be ambiguous

posted 9 years ago by sbleboff-163-707319
5 replies | jump to latest

It seems to me that the issue of whether Susie is actually raped in the motel and the issue of whether Sanchez is actually guilty of the murder are both left open, likely deliberately (the cops could have simply beaten a false confession out of Sanchez.) The open issues of crime and guilt,with the loose ends not truly being tied up mirror life in the real world and make this a very modern or timeless film, as opposed to a dated one.

Recall that Linnekar's daughter gets to leave with her expensive lawyer without being questioned. To me that suggests that she could be the true murderer and if so, can get away with it because of her wealth. These issues remain hanging after the final credits.

[–] TopFrog 9 years ago

In the opening shot we see that the person who plants the bomb is a man in a suit, which rules out Linnekar's daughter doing it, at least without a confederate. There isn't really a clear shot of the bomb-planter, but he looks generally like Sanchez. (There isn't anything about his appearance that is inconsistent with his being Sanchez.)

[–] Underdog_73 8 years ago

It seems to me that the issue of whether Susie is actually raped in the motel and the issue of whether Sanchez is actually guilty of the murder are both left open

*****SPOILERS*****

Neither of these issues were left open. It was made abundantly clear nothing happened to Susie other than being injected with sodium pentathol and having marijuana smoke blown on her clothes. This was stated and confirmes in the hotel room.

As for Sanchez, he confessed. This was stated at the end when the guy was talking to Marlene Dietrich's character. He said Quinlan was right and didn't need to frame Sanchez because Sanchez confessed.

Granted, I watched a version of the film on TCM that had a statement at the beginning which stated this was re-edited to more closely resemble Wells' original vision. Maybe the theatrical release didn't address these issues.

[–] moralesmassin 8 years ago

It was made abundantly clear nothing happened to Susie other than being injected with sodium pentathol and having marijuana smoke blown on her clothes. This was stated and confirmes in the hotel room.

Hummm yeah... in a line in the movie. However, another line in the movie from the butch woman was "I want to watch" What do you think that was about? They were a gang of criminals alone in a hotel room with a beautiful victim. If she was not violated still everyone would have thought she was. Why would they not do it? Up until that point it was pretty clear.

What I read about that scene (can´t remember where right now, sorry) was that for the censorship at the time, they were really pushing the envelope and that they included that scene afterwards to clarify "nothing happened to her" to appease general audiences. Therefore, if the film was made in a more accepting era, she would have been abused sexually.

So, technically, she was not. But, you know... she kinda was.

[–] Crystal (534) 5 years ago

Why would they not do it? LOL Ok. Also remember that the girls were asked if they had undressed her. This implies her clothes were removed by the girls at the hotel.

[–] Crystal (534) 5 years ago

But, there is the possibility it was a false confession to stop the abuse. The story with the daughter was odd as well.